Concerning Mr. Shauket Ali Akhtar and the members of the crew of the Kota Indah

The State has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by Commission on
Human Rights resolution 1991/42. The mandate of the Working Group was clarified
and extended by resolutions 1997/50 and 2000/36, and reconfirmed by resolution
2001/40. Acting in accordance with its methods of work, the Working Group forwarded
the above-mentioned communication to the Government.

2. The Working Group regrets that the Government has not replied within the
90-day deadline.

3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(i) When it manifestly cannot be justified on any legal basis (such as continued
detention after the sentence has been served or despite an applicable amnesty
act)
(category I);
(ii) When the deprivation of liberty is the result of a judgement or sentence
for the exercise of the rights and freedoms proclaimed in articles 7, 13, 14,
18, 19, 20
and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also, in respect of
States parties, in articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (category II);
(iii) When the complete or partial non-observance of the international standards
relating to a fair trial set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and
in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned is
of such gravity as to confer on the deprivation of liberty, of whatever kind,
an
arbitrary character (category III).

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed
the cooperation of the Government. In the absence of any information from the
Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to render an
opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts
and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the
Government.

5. On 19 February 1999, the Kota Indah, a Singaporean vessel owned by Pacific
International Lines (PIL), was towed into Surabaya inner harbour, Indonesia,
and anchored under the guidance of the harbour pilot and with the approval of
the port control. According to the vessel’s harbour chart, the mooring
area was not an area in which anchoring is prohibited.

6. Subsequently, the vessel’s bridgemaster, Captain Shaukat Ali Akhtar,
informed Surabaya port control that the vessel had dragged its anchor for a
distance of approximately 460 metres. Thereafter, under the guidance of port
control, the vessel’s engines were used and the starboard anchor was heaved
up, then again dropped for a short period.

7. On 21 February 1999, the police detained six members of the crew of the Kota
Indah, Captain Shaukat Ali Akhtar, Mr. Daniel Attah-Gyasi, Mr. Krustiono Basuki,
Mr. Miladin Vucetic, Mr. Zhang Chang You and Mr. Johny Erumbanath Antony. The
authorities reportedly detained them for 60 days, without any charges.

8. PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara Company (PT PLN), a local power company and
owner of the submarine Gresik-Madura Power Cable, brought a civil law suit against
Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd. PT PLN alleged that the underwater power
cable which went across the seabed of Surabaya harbour in the vicinity of the
mooring space of the Kota Indah had been damaged by its anchor when the ship
was adrift. On 14 June 2000, the Court of First Instance of Surabaya
unanimously dismissed PT PLN’s claim and declared that there was no evidence
that the ship’s crew had committed any intentional negligence.

9. According to the source, the Public Prosecutor has to date not submitted
any formal charges in a parallel criminal case reportedly brought against the
crew members. The crew members are not allowed to leave Indonesia and continue
under city arrest (i.e. they are confined to Surabaya). Lastly, it was said
that under normal circumstances an incident of this type should be settled through
the civil courts and the ship’s crew should not have been detained for
such a long period.

10. Instruments relied upon by the Working Group in the examination of communications
brought to its attention have been violated. This concerns in particular article
9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

11. The Working Group points out that the source formulates two different allegations
concerning the unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of liberty to which six crew
members of the Kota Indah were subjected, which deserve to be examined separately.
(i) First, it was contended that the six crew members were detained on 21 February
1999 by police officers and kept in detention for a period of 60 days
without any charge. The Public Prosecutor brought no charge against them subsequent
to their release from police custody.
(ii) Second, it was alleged that the crew members were not allowed to leave
Indonesia and were confined to Surabaya.

12. With regard to the arrest of the six crew members and their detention in
police custody, the Working Group points out that this was a clear case of deprivation
of liberty. The six members of the crew, Mr. Shaukat Ali Akhtar, Mr. Daniel
Attah-Gyasi, Mr. Krustiono Basuki, Mr. Miladin Vucetic, Mr. Zhang Chang You
and Mr. Johny Erumbanath Antony were all held in police custody, locked up permanently
for 60 days without any warrant of arrest having been issued against them.

13. With regard to their being prevented from leaving Indonesia and their being
confined to Surabaya City, the Working Group refers to its constant jurisprudence,
formulated in clear terms in its Deliberation 1/1993, under which house arrest
and similar measures are qualified as deprivation of liberty only if the person
concerned is placed in closed and locked premises which he cannot leave without
being authorized to do so. In the view of the Group, the measure taken
against the six crew members of the Khota Indah preventing them from leaving
Indonesia is not a measure of deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the
mandate of the Working Group, but a measure which restricts freedom of movement
within the meaning of article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

14. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
(i) The arrest and detention for 60 days of six members of the crew of the vessel
the Kota Indah are arbitrary since they are contrary to article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and fall within category III of the principles applicable
in the consideration of cases submitted to the Working Group.
(ii) Since the measure taken in respect of the crew members of the Kota Indah
preventing them from leaving Indonesia or the city of Surabaya does not fall
into
the category of deprivation of liberty, the Working Group does not deem necessary
to take a position as to whether it was arbitrary or not.

15. The Working Group requests the Government to take the necessary steps to
remedy the situation, to bring it into conformity with the standards and principles
set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to avoid the occurrence
of such practices in the future.